Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Sarath S/O Sankarankutty

MACA No.839 of 2018 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943 ## MACA NO. 839 OF 2018 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.619/2010 DATED 9.3.2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KOCHI NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI 682 020 BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ## RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SARATH S/O. SANKARANKUTTY, SARATH BHAVAN, PRAIKKARA,MAVELIKARA 690 101 BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.839 of 2018 2 ## JUDGMENT This is an appeal submitted by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara on 9.3.2017 in OP(MV)No.619 of 2010. 2. The claim petition was filed by the 1[st] respondent herein seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident occurred on 11.1.2010. It is contended by the claimant that at the time of the accident, he was working as a Lecturer in an Engineering College and was getting an amount of Rs.15,000/- as monthly income. He was aged 22 years. On account of the injuries, he sustained permanent disablement and as per Ext.A9 disability certificate, he sustained 22% permanent partial disability. Accordingly, he claimed a total compensation of Rs.10,62,750/- 3. The appellant Insurance Company alone contested the the matter by filing a written statement wherein, they have admitted the coverage of policy but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also seriously disputed. 4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A12 from the side of the claimant/1[st] respondent herein. MACA No.839 of 2018 3 No evidence was adduced from the side of the appellant herein. 5. After the trial, the Tribunal found that, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and being the insurer, the appellant Insurance Company was held liable to pay the amount of compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.14,76,373/- and the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 6. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Mathews Jacob appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and also Adv.Arun Bose appearing for the 1[st] respondent-claimant. 8. The main contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel is that, the respondent/claimant was a lecturer at the time of accident and he continued his job, even after the injuries. The nature of physical disabilities and the extent thereof, has not resulted in any actual loss of earning capacity of the respondent/claimant. In such circumstances, the proper course that should have been adopted by the Tribunal was to calculate the compensation MACA No.839 of 2018 4 under this head by taking the probable loss of earning capacity after his retirement. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant opposes the said contention and submitted that, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable in all respects and no interference is required. 10. While analyzing the factual situation, this court finds some force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. It is discernible that the respondent was aged 22 years at the relevant time and admittedly, even now he is working as a lecturer. Ofcourse, he may be having some difficulty due to the physical disability. But there are no materials to show that the accident has seriously affected his earning capacity as a lecturer, so as to warrant a compensation as calculated by the Tribunal. However, this Court has to consider the fact that, he was aged 22 years at the time of accident and he is compelled to live with that disability throughout his life. It would create serious inconvenience for him in all respects. Therefore, the inconvenience and discomfort caused to the claimant on account of the injuries is a relevant aspect to be taken into account and should be adequately compensated. In such circumstance, this Court is of the MACA No.839 of 2018 5 view that the compensation has to be reworked, by taking the probable loss of earning capacity after his retirement, while granting some additional amounts for compensating for the loss of amenities and inconvenience,owing to the injuries. In this case the age of retirement is treated as 56, and hence the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose shall be 9. For making an assessment of a reasonable income he would be getting at the time of retirement, present income with some addition towards future prospects, can be taken into consideration. The Tribunal had taken the monthly income as Rs 15,000/- and this can be accepted as a base. Going by the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ## National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4)KLT 662], addition towards future prospects can be taken as 50% in respect of regular salaried employees. It is true that the said addition was provided by Honourable Supreme Court, in the cases of death. However, the said method can be adopted in this case, even though this is a case of injury, as the purpose herein is to assess the compensation for the loss of earning capacity of the appellant after his retirement. If no addition is made to the present MACA No.839 of 2018 6 income, it would result in serious prejudice to the appellant. Thus, while calculating the compensation with the above criteria, the amount receivable by the claimant has to be refixed as Rs.5,34,600/- instead of Rs 10,69,200/-. 11. It is seen that no amount is granted towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. As mentioned above, he had sustained very serious injuries and it resulted in permanent partial disability also. He has to live with the said injury/disability throughout his life and he needs to be compensated for this. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal not to grant any amount under this head is not sustainable. In the facts of this case, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- would be a reasonable compensation under this head. The respondent/claimant was aged 22 years at the time of accident and he was unmarried. The physical impairment would have affected his marriage prospects and therefore a further amount Rs.50,000/- can be granted under marriage prospects. The amount awarded for pain and sufferings is Rs.30,000/- which is on lower side. Going by the records, it can be seen that, he was MACA No.839 of 2018 7 under treatment as inpatient for 49 days. The nature of injuries were also very serious and, therefore, the said amount requires substantial enhancement. Considering the relevant aspects, this Court is of the view that, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- can be fixed as compensation under this head instead of Rs.30,000/-. Similarly, the amount awarded under the head of loss of earnings is Rs.45,000/- which is calculated for a period of three months. Going by the nature of injuries, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have prevented from continuing the job for a longer period. The amount claimed by the appellant in this head is Rs 75,000/- and this court finds the said claim to be reasonable. Hence entire amount of Rs.75,000/- is awarded under this head. 12. Thus, the total amount is re-fixed as Rs.12,91,773/-(Rupees twelve Lakhs, Ninety one thousand, Seven hundred and Seventy three only) (Rs.75000+3000+2000+750+316623+9800+100000+534600+200000+50000) instead of Rs.14,76,373/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is reported that an amount of Rs.9 Lakhs is already deposited by the appellant on the basis of the orders MACA No.839 of 2018 8 of this Court. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and proportionate costs within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ## **pkk**